Re: pg_log

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Oliver Elphick" <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_log
Date: 2001-01-17 00:34:37
Message-ID: 15320.979691677@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

"Oliver Elphick" <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> Developers:
> I've seen this question several times; wouldn't it be better to rename
> pg_log to pg_tuplestatus? Calling something ...log is asking for it
> to be wiped.

In 7.1 it'll have a numeric filename ($PGDATA/global/1269, actually)
which should reduce the tendency for DBAs to assume there's nothing
important in it. I regard this as one of the major advantages of
having switched to numeric filenames ;-)

regards, tom lane

In response to

  • Re: pg_log at 2001-01-17 00:26:22 from Oliver Elphick

Responses

  • Re: pg_log at 2001-01-17 03:24:44 from Joseph Shraibman

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Uro Gruber 2001-01-17 00:35:27 pg_hba.conf edit
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-01-17 00:31:45 Re: pg_log